Subject:
|
Re: Moonbase Project: Wider Corridors?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:28:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
667 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:H13DMv.1JH@lugnet.com...
> > > I would ask people not to blow this out of proportion...
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Can you please confirm Larry's interpretation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jude
>
> Yup. What he said. :-)
>
> We wouldn't even begin to tell others what they can or cannot build.
> But now I feel we've come to a bit of a crossroads in the project.
>
> I honestly feel that to link to a 'rogue-module' in the links section is
> going to be about as effective as 'endorsing' it on the site. Say a new
> user comes and checks out the site and see's no mention of a wide corridor,
> then they browse the links section and see one module with a wide corridor.
> What would they make of that?
>
> Granted, a wider corridor that could still connect to other modules is not
> that big of a deal, but the point will come when someone wants to submit a
> module that really sidesteps the standard. What then?
>
> If 'Builder 2' with the module on a 32x32 baseplate sees 'Builder 1's' Wide
> corridor in the Links section don't you think he will assume his module has
> every right to be there as well?
>
> At the meeting we spent a long time discussing color-scheme. Originally it
> was going to be pretty restrictive but we dropped all mention of it before
> we launched the page. When I wrote the page I tried to make it as clear as
> possible that a module could be anything the builder wanted. We
> incorporated the super-module idea into the project. When someone said
> 'Monorail' I freaked out because I thought it was such a cool idea. My
> point is I really think we have been very open about the whole process.
>
> I'm under the impression that most people are very happy with the standard.
> Only a few people have said certain things should be changed.
>
> I've already been blabbing for too long. I'll say this:
> Can we at the very least wait 6 weeks until we can see the first real
> moonbase at NWBrickcon before we change things up further?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
Thanks for clearing up your position. I guess it is like the World Wide Web
Consortium standards (http://www.w3.org/). Although, thank goodness nobody
has taken the role of Microsoft, yet. :-)
Perhaps you could create a links page for non-standard ideas, on it you can
put a disclaimer stating the modules do not conform to the defined standards
and are not 'endorsed'. After all, I know we don't want to hinder the
creative process.
Just thinking out loud,
Jude
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Moonbase Project: Wider Corridors?
|
| "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message news:H13DMv.1JH@lugnet.com... (...) Yup. What he said. :-) We wouldn't even begin to tell others what they can or cannot build. But now I feel we've come to a bit of a crossroads in the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
